Since the earliest days of motor driven vehicles there has been an on going primary concern in respect of the vehicles wheels splashing moisture ladden materials on the roadway onto the vehicle. A secondary concern has been the desire to keep the splashed material or semi-fluid medium from being driven by vehicle wheels onto other vehicles using the highway. In the case of trucks and trucks pulling trailers, the laws of many states require that there be provided a downwardly projecting barrier to prevent the splashing or the throwing of stones lodged between double sets of wheels.
In the early days of motor driven vehicles when dirt roadways were more common than paved, the aforementioned splash problem was treated by the use of mud flaps. Over the years devices intended to correct splash problems have been variously termed, "fender extensions", "tire spray shields", "splash guards" and as noted above, "mud flaps".
Typical of an early effort in this technical area of concern is the fender extension of W. G. Bratz, U.S. Pat. No. 2,559,755. The primary concern of Bratz is to provide a fender guard constructed and arranged to protect the fender and body surfaces against splashing and the like by the vehicle wheel. Bratz does not entertain nor provide for, in his design, a splash guard that is primarily concerned with protecting other vehicles on the road from splashing as will be seen to be present in the invention to be described hereinafter.
The patent to Maxwell L. Earnest, U.S. Pat. No. 2,605,119 is a most significant contribution to the state-of-the-art in that Earnest provides a splash guard that surrounds the wheels of a truck and thereby prevents the wheels of the truck from throwing mud and water against passing or on-coming vehicles. The objective of Earnest identifies a problem which is solved by the invention to be described hereinafter by means of a splash guard deflector that is of a most elementary form and costing but a small fraction of the cost that would inherently be generated in the production of the Earnest splash guard.
Another good example of a splash guard for a truck is that shown and described in the patent to F. L. Wenham et al U.S. Pat. No. 2,619,363. This patent is directed to the manner and material utilized in the construction of a splash guard shown in FIGS. 1 to 5 of Wenham et al. It is of interest to note that the splash guard configuration of Wenham et al is of the type seen on the great majority of trucks today. It should be noted that Wenham et al recognizes that with flexible splash guards there is a tendency for the splash guards to be flexed by air moving there-against. To prevent flexing, Wenham et al provides openings 14 in the flap 1 along the upper edge to thereby allow passage of air as shown by arrows in FIG. 1 of Wenham et al.
The patent to W. C. Eaves, U.S. Pat. No. 2,940,773 provides a significant facet to the background prior art from which prior art the invention to be described is an advance. Eaves recognizes the problem of the conventional mud flaps acting as baffles that actually deflect stones laterally in the path of passing vehicles, and in severe rain storms the mud flaps intercept water throw from the tires creating a mist or cloud obscuring the vision of operators of passing vehicles. When the Eaves patent is studied, it will be appreciated that Eaves has merely provided a fender for a trailed vehicle, which fender when bolted in place acts much like a fender one would find on early vintage automobiles.
The L. A. Barry et al U.S. Pat. No. 3,088,751 is directed to a vehicle tire spray shield having an overall rectangular configuration when viewed from the rear as shown in FIG. 1. The Barry et al spray shield is a relatively complex device that includes louvers 38, a coarse screen 40, and spring biased rigid flap 42, all of which features no doubt enhance spray control at a cost to fabricate that is significantly greater than the universal splash guard deflector to be described hereinafter.
As the description of the invention to be set forth in the specification that follows unfolds, it will be keenly apparent that the invention is simpler in construction than Wenham et al, Eaves and Barry et al discussed above. In addition, the inventive principal which is dramatically present in the splash guard deflector allows the invention to be employed on both automobiles, as well as trucks, while the inventive contributions of Wenham et al, Eaves and Barry et al are limited in their use to trucks or truck and trailer combinations.